ALJDEC

99F-P0306-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2000-02-04

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: January 26, 2000, at 1:30 p.m. APPEARANCES: The Complainants appeared through John Tuhey. The Respondent appeared on his own behalf. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: M. Douglas

This matter came on for hearing on January 26, 2000. The Complainants appeared through John Tuhey and the Respondent appeared on his own behalf. Evidence and testimony were presented and, based upon the entire record, the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommended Order are made:

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Respondent is the holder of a Class B- License issued by the Registrar of Contractors. 2. This is a residential matter where the Respondent constructed a new residence for the Complainants. 3. The Complainants were dissatisfied with the Respondent’s workmanship and failure to correct his work despite repeated requests that he do so. The Complainants then filed a formal complaint, against the Respondent, with the Registrar of Contractors. 4. Pursuant to the filing of the formal complaint, an assigned Agency Inspector conducted an on-site inspection and issued a written corrective work order directing the Respondent to perform designated corrective work on the Complainants’ residence. 5. The Complainants filed two separate amendments to their complaint. The Complaint, as amended, is lengthy. During the course of construction and corrective work, the personal relationships between the Complainants and the Respondent deteriorated rapidly. The parties have had repeated sharp confrontations and both parties evidence a growing antipathy regarding the lengthy list of items that dissatisfied the Complainants. 6. Credible evidence, produced at hearing, established that the Respondent did respond to the written corrective work order and that some of the items have been corrected to within applicable industry standards. However, the following items were shown to still constitute unacceptable workmanship and to require proper corrective action by the Respondent: g) The Respondent has performed corrective action on the sliding door in the first floor bath. However, this item still fails to comply with minimum workmanship standards. The Respondent shall properly correct the sliding glass door. h) There are missing and improperly installed window screens. The Respondent shall inspect all of the window screens and ensure that all windows have window screens and that all window screens are properly installed. i) The second floor still squeaks. The Respondent shall properly correct the squeaking floor. j) A window in the living room was shown to have an unacceptable scratch. The Respondent shall properly repair or replace the scratched window. k) The exterior side of the living room window was shown to have an unacceptable scratch. The Respondent shall cause the window frame to be properly corrected. l) The entry door from the garage into the residence does not have an acceptable dead bolt. The Respondent shall properly install a proper dead bolt and furnish the Complainants with a key. m) The east side garage door does not have an acceptable dead bolt or brass faceplate. The Respondent shall install a proper dead bolt and brass faceplate and shall furnish the Complainants with a key. n) The inside of the garage has not been finished. The Respondent shall properly finish the inside of the garage. o) The garage door has not been properly prepped and painted. The Respondent shall properly prep and paint the garage door. p) The house key for the handle locks will not unlock the front door from the outside. The Respondent shall properly repair or replace the locks and furnish the Complainants with a key that works. q) There is missing door hardware for several of the interior doors. The Respondent shall inspect all of the door hardware in the residence and ensure that all hardware is present and properly installed and ensure that all door hardware functions properly. r) The French doors still rub against the carpet. Carpeting is not an industry acceptable door stop. The Respondent shall properly correct the doors and install a proper door stop for the French doors. s) Interior drywall repairs have not been properly touched up. The Respondent shall ensure that all interior repairs are properly touched up. t) The thresholds and the (door) wipes still allow air to leak around the exterior doors in the residence. The Respondent shall properly repair or replace the door thresholds and wipes. u) The furnace has an unacceptable vibration. The Respondent shall cause the furnace to be properly repaired or replaced. v) There is still plaster cracking in the laundry room. The Respondent shall properly repair and touch up the plaster cracking. w) The light fixture for the stairway to the 2nd floor was shown to require adjustment. The Respondent shall properly repair or replace the light fixture. x) There is still construction debris around the Complainants’ residence. The Respondent shall cause all construction debris to be properly removed. y) The door for the second floor porch has unacceptable scratches around the dead bolt. The Respondent shall properly correct the scratches around the dead bolt. z) The handrails for the front, rear and second floor porches have not been properly prepped and painted. The Respondent shall cause the hand rails to be properly repaired or replaced. aa) The finish on the window seat has failed. The Respondent shall properly refinish the window seat. ab) The exterior motion lights do not work properly. The Respondent shall properly repair or replace the motion lights. ac) The second floor room over the garage has not been completed. The Respondent shall properly complete the second floor room including painting. ad) The roofing for the second floor porch roof is unacceptable. The Respondent, utilizing a properly licensed contractor, shall properly correct the porch roof. ae) There is still a leak under the master bath sink. The Respondent shall cause the leak to be properly corrected. af) The Respondent shall supply the Complainants with written instructions for the proper cleaning of the glass covers for the fire place. ag) The pantry door in the kitchen does not work properly. The Respondent shall properly repair or replace the pantry door. ah) The exercise room door is out of adjustment. The Respondent shall properly repair or replace the exercise room door. ai) The windows in the master bedroom sitting area do not open as required by applicable plans and specifications. The Respondent shall properly replace the windows as per applicable plans and specifications. aj) The ceiling in the master bedroom has unacceptable cracking. The Respondent shall properly correct the unacceptable cracking. ak) There is an unacceptable chip in the siding near the speaker volume switch. The Respondent shall properly repair or replace the chipped siding. al) The water pressure to the sinks in the master bath does not comply with industry standards. The Respondent shall cause the water pressure for the two sinks to be properly corrected. am) The Respondent shall install a closet rod in the first floor bedroom closet. an) The laundry room drain does not operate properly. The Respondent shall cause the drain to be properly repaired or replaced. ao) The Respondent shall cause a hemostat to be installed for the humidifier and ensure that the humidifier is not leaking. 42. The remaining enumerated items of the Complainants’ complaint, as amended, were either insufficiently shown to be workmanship deficiencies or shown to have been properly corrected prior to the hearing. 43. Although Complainants’ concerns, frustrations, and aggravation regarding the problems they have experienced with the construction of their new home are understandable, construction work, such as that at issue herein, is not a perfect science and it is not uncommon in the industry to have corrections, repairs, or replacements of resultant poor workmanship prior or subsequent to completion of a specified project, in order to bring the final work product up to appropriate industry standards. 44. Notice is taken of the Respondent’s prior License record with the Registrar of Contractors.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The credible evidence of record established violations by the Respondent of the provisions of A.R.S. (32-1154 (A) (23) and (3); namely, Rule R4-9- 108.

RECOMMENDED ORDER

In view of the foregoing, it is recommended that the Respondent’s Class B- License shall be revoked unless the Registrar of Contractors receives proof that the Respondent has caused the proper accomplishment of proper corrective action to the items set forth above in Finding of Fact Nos.6(a) through 6(ii), inclusive. It is further recommended that if the Respondent properly causes the accomplishment of the above described corrective action, on or before the effective date of this Order, then the above provided License revocation shall not take place and Citation No. P99-0306 shall be closed. Done this day, February 8, 2000.

______________________________________ M. DOUGLAS Administrative Law Judge

Original transmitted by mail this ____ day of February, 2000, to:

Michael P. Goldwater, Director Registrar of Contractors ATTN: Joyce Armijo 800 West Washington, 6th Floor Phoenix, AZ 85007

By _______________________________

-----------------------

Office of Administrative Hearings 100 N. Stone Ave., Suite 704 Tucson, Arizona 85701 (520) 628-5488